I needed a bible with a better concordance while studying yesterday, and I picked up a bible in a home where I serve as Nanny for 3 children.

This family doesn't serve God, but the mother handed me a bible called the New American Bible I thought OK, I've never heard of it, but it's got large letters (the other reason I needed another bible:)

Upon further inspection, I noticed it was a Catholic Bible, containing books I've heard of, but never actually read i.e. Sirach, Tobit, Baruch, the book of Wisdom and a few more.

I was fascinated reading the history of these books! In many of the description there was a notation: "this book is not recognized by the protestant faith"

If the Bible is inspired word of God given to men so that we ALL may come to know him, why aren't all the known books included in mainstream christiandom for our growth and edification?

Views: 117

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


The oldest manuscripts in Greek that we have are from the 4th century C.E. The KJV, and all other literal versions have used this manuscript to translate. There are no "superior" translations out there. The ESV, NASB are considered by most scholars, over the KJV, as the most literal of all translations. Some scholars argue that the most original text were translated first into Hebrew, then it went on into Greek. The latin Vulgate did not come to a few centuries later.
You are ABSOLUTELY correct!
all other translations came from the Latin translation, the only translation that came from the original Greek and Hebrew is the KJV. Fact
God Bless
This is not true. The KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It is a known fact that William Tyndale's work eventually found its way into the King James Version (or "Authorised Version") of the Bible, published in 1611.
ESV, NASB are considered by most scholars,
that proves my point.. :)
God Bless Brother
If you really want to get "technical" then consider these thing closely:

-the KJV came ALSO from the use of the Latin translation as well as the original Greek Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.
-the KJV has NOTABLE flaws within it, due to the limited understanding of that time and human error factors, thus making it simply A TRANSLITERATION.
-If you want to get the PERFECT meaning of the word of GOD consider these two things: 1) PRAY while reading, allowing the HOLY SPIRIT to teach and guide you, 2) learn Greek and Hebrew for yourself (not required), and/or 3) learn of the culture at the time so the scriptures can come alive for you and you can relate, something the KJV translators neglected to do (not required, but HIGHLY useful)

My friends, there is no such thing as the perfect transliteration from any language to English. This is not the flaw of the other language, for Greek and Hebrew are actually rated amongst the exact languages ever to exist. No this is the problem of English. Simply put, "ENGLISH IS A MUT"! English has nothing pure about it. It has borrowed from almost every tongue in existence, including Greek and Hebrew. You want a perfect transliteration from Grek and Hebrew, languages deemed to be the fathers of current tongues today, to English, which is the scrap-book of modern speech?? HAVE FUN TRANSLATING!! This has nothing to do with GOD ability or limitation, but Americans and English speakers everywhere!
Whoo Hoo!

Transliteration, a fine point and most definitive! We choose what and who we want...and the accepted Word says... and I paraphrase.... we get pastors after are own hearts.

And if THOSE pastors are not after our hearts, or in agreement of what we CHOOSE to believe, we create our OWN!

However Praying, ALLOWING the HOLY SPIRIT to TEACH, LEAD and GUIDE is the most compelling portion of your statement!

And you're correct it has NOTHING to do with GOD's ability nor HIS limitations! That's an oxymoron for an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, God

May we all come to the Unity of (the) Faith and the knowledge of HIS Holy Spirit!


Thank you for your comment!
you said: the KJV came ALSO from the use of the Latin translation

answer: WRONG!
Hi that's a interesting question. Let me say, that the Nicean Council back in 33 something A.D. are the ones who compiled the 66 books chosen to go into the Bible. From the information I've read the reason they left out certain letters, including those you mention is because they found conflict within them with regard to the original message of Jesus. That said, the various letters, including those you made mention of, are used by scholars to give insight on some of the pervasive habits and mindsets that existed back then.

However, the apostles throughout their various letters spoke of 'heretical' teachings that were being passed around at that time. The Nicean Council of 33 something A.D. found that some of that misinformation was in the very books you named. In fact, within the entire what is called, "Lost Books of the Bible" and Apocrypha.

Yet, like you pointed out, many of the lost books are enclosed in Bible's foreign lands. For instance, the Ethipia Bible contains all of the Lost Bible books. For sure, that makes them have a unique mindset and disposition about spiritual matters. Is it wrong in God's eyes? I don't think so, I just think maybe it complicates their spiritual walk or, then again, maybe it doesn't.

The Nicean Council was not in existence until the 3rd-4th centuries. Certain books, such as the Letter written by James, almost did not make the cannon because the so called "Church Fathers" considered it not true to the original teachings of Jesus. They claimed that James letter preaches works salvation. But this is not true. James promotes LIVING faith, rather than dead faith. James also promotes the LAW, rather than lawlessness.

Revelation almost did not make it because of its so called "violentt nature". We must truly study ourselves approved so that we will not be deceived by the enemy.

those books were included, and the Apostles quoted from them, but when they sealed the canon, they left them out. Here's ar great book you can read, It's called the Biblical Canon, Origin, Transmission and Authority. by Lee M. McDonald. It is used as a textbook for Seminaries...You will find out LOTS of stuff you probably weren't taught in Church.

I especially liked the fact that you said before the canon was "closed." I personally do not believe in a closed Canon of scripture. Truth be told, there is no scriptural support for this.


© 2022   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service